User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morbidthoughts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! I see that my article about French music duo Nôze was "speedily deleted". It might be correct. But when I tried to understand the guidelines of speedy deletion, I was not completely convinced... :) I added the page since I found some really positive reviews in major Swedish newspapers, which I could refer (link) to. Would that motivate that the article remains? Do you think it would motivate an article in the Swedish version of Wikipedia? Please help a newbie do the right thing! Thanks! DoltX (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Having reliable sources will prevent a speedy deletion even if they are Swedish. Also another way to keep the article from being speedily deleted is to say why the band is important. Did it have a hit song or a hit album? Did they win awards? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article speedily deleted earlier today, then?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea since I wasn't the one that wrote it before. Your speedy tagging is reckless if a prior speedy is your criteria for an A7. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your article had less information than the deleted one.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter as long as the article indicates the importance of the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've emailed you a copy of the old article so you can fold the information from it into the new one. Tabercil (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry then. I just run into a lot of people restarting deleted articles so I made the wrong assumption.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my original version? Morbid, thanks for putting it up again. I'll restore some bits later on. Helios (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be Zoid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) Helios (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Have an unyielding beer on me. Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion. This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was the case (that Jenna J stated in her auto-bio that Jesse J and Nikki Tyler were once a couple) but I don't have the autobiography to hand. If I get a hold of a copy and find the fact, I'll note the page number, and do the edit. The fact is noted at a few sites, with the description "sizzling" but I see that these all probably stem from the Nikki T wikipedia page, which may have been false in the first place. P3L3 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I do have the autobiography and I don't remember seeing Jesse's name in it, but I'll give it a quick scan-through to see if I can locate it. Tabercil (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the edit of [Paul Mobley] I wasn't aware that it violated the pillers of Wikipedia. My goal was to correct confusion with material that, while not written by the other Paul Mobley, is clearly written by his publicists. A search on yahoo for "Paul Mobley" comes up with me as the number #1 link. How does the article as it currently stands conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ?? Paulmobley (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Mobley seems like a notable photographer from a Google News search, and his article does not seem promotional nor does it seem like it was created by one of his publicists. You should not be creating articles about yourself or your businesses. If you are indeed notable, someone will eventually create a sustainable separate article about you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Both Kimura and Stevens are unnotable apart from Naked News to have their own articles. Mentions of them in the Naked News article themselves are sufficient. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your blind revert, but I have removed the information I believe you were trying to remove. Your revert also undid proper infobox expansion and removal of invalid fields. Please be mindful and thorough when doing a blanket revert. Also, please be mindful of your accusations, specifically, where you claim I cited myspace as a source.

Your claim of IMDB not being a proper secondary source, this is the first I've heard of this. What is your rationale? roguegeek (talk·cont) 08:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the myspace mishap and the mindless revert. I didn't notice the first time that it had already been there. As for IMDB, which probably should be considered a tertiary source like wikipedia, here are some discussions about it not being a reliable source.

• BLP discussion
• RS Discussion
• WikiProject Film discussion
• and the heated motherload of all IMDB discussion Morbidthoughts

(talk) 09:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Ok, thanks for the references on that. First time I've heard of IMDB being anything but a secondary source. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out this article: VPILF. Bletchley (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is more reliable than Wikipedia.

Norum (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread WP:V and then read this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you add your thoughts to this please? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about Jameson and Haze. I guess I should have given it another thought when I did that revert. I thought I had seen a featured article about a mainstream actor that had their nominations listed. Due to it being an FA, I took that to mean that noms were to be included and was just transferring the same practice over to the porn world. Dismas|^(talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

here is the link to his Facebook profile. This is his actual profile and link to Jussinniemi's page as well. http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=Adam+Diksa&init=q&sid=7d9693ffefda939322fcc8f92aca6431

Facebook, myspace, friendster, or any other social networking sites are not reliable third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I swear when I tagged that article there was NOTHING there, sorry about that, with the info there I agree there is more than enough to meet WP:PORNBIO. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The page had been vandalised and then restored right before you had speedy tagged it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great meeting you in vegas! Really enjoyed actually getting to know you. A couple of Wiki things I thought I'd pass along. We have a number of video interviews we did at the show. If you think they're relevant you can either link to them on our site: http://www.xcritic.com/columns/archives.php?ID=2 or at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/xcriticdotcom. Also XCritic was asked by AVN to cover the awards show from backstage on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/xcritic, hoping that kind of nod pushes us over the notable mark... Does it?

Thanks! Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Hi there, would it be possible to put some of your photos on some of these articles, anyones that you think are best to use, some have a bad/grainy photo included in them:

• Lexxi Tyler
• Angelina Valentine
• Lorena Sanchez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.35.196 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since disagreement over the Jessica Drake image has been unsettled, I've decided to create a poll which will hopefully settle the issue and create a rough consensus. The poll is at Talk:Jessica_Drake#Poll:_Jessica_Drake_image. Valrith (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the ongoing discussion on my talk page about Jones' arrest. Dismas|^(talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

...What do you do for a living. I was taking a look through your flickr account and saw all the photos you have and was curious as to what you do. Dismas|^(talk) 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Like my user profile says, I am an attorney. I just have friends in low places that can get me access into even lower places. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you keep editing content added to Shawna Lenee when people are trying to comment on a reported incident that happened. Are you a official admin. If not don't change it. Being none of the information added with valid links for confirmation was offensive and you have no right unless you want to delete history! Theamazingkazoo (talk) 15 February 2009 (GMT)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to add personal commentary about what happens nor is it a tabloid. If you wish to add any controversial material to an article, please read wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people and original research beforehand and comply with those policies. That is if you wish to add her appearance on that show, cite it to a reliable secondary source. You must also leave out any personal commentary and maintain a neutral point of view. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea what your point is. your comment of " Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Shawna Lenee. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)"

Is completely absurd. Me and the other numerous people that have edited her page to add the meltdown she had on such a high profile show IS FACT and has had numerous references posted to validate the incident. including her bizzare video post. her reply back Would you go and edit per say tom cruise's strange behavior that made press when he jumped up and down on the sofa on tv. NO. Why you are hell bent of removing this note worthy point which isn't here say is beyond me. If your trying to be a admin it's a disturbing bad case of administration of documents. As i said if your not an official admin then don't alter pages that have content added to it which is report on a true incident and NOT inflammatory. this is schoolboy stuff theamazingkazoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazingkazoo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ordering me not to edit the article (when I'm doing so based on policy) is taking ownership of the article. There's a difference between Tom Cruise's behavior as that event was widely reported by press while Shawna's wasn't . You said it yourself. "Made press". If you think Shawna's event is noteworthy, then you must find reliable secondary sources that document the event to satisfy wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Editors can not make wikipedia the original report of the event nor insert their own personal analysis of the event. Those who continue to do so will be blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the review. I might put it up for DYK first and do a little more polishing before putting it up for GA review. Think that tag at the bottom is going to cause any problems? ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem. I think the obstacle now is to find free pictures of Chesty in her prime. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got scans from the newspaper articles-- one nice one (well, nice but grainy & pixellated) of her with her husband. (Check it out at BP). But those are not usable either, I suppose. One of the film posters might be usable in the film section, though a discussion of it would probably have to be expanded to justify it... Dekkappai (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem indeed that there is a dispute regarding the sources. I just hate unexplained driveby tagging which it looked like. I also am not sure if this is the right tag for that, if there is any in the first place. Although I am influenced by User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. Garion96 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Morbidthougts.

I am just trying to develop this page and have asked a couple of other editors for advice in how to avoid deletion as this is a legitimate page that I am trying to create.

You managed to amend my title to Annemarie Wright - can you please tell me how to amend it so that I can add her date of birth onto the title?

Any other useful tips on linking my site would also be appreciated,

Thank you

94.169.7.42 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is appropriate and should not have the date there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

The addition I made to the Nadia Styles page was not poorly referenced or controversial. The link to where she says those things is already cited on the page. The article already states that she is a 'critic of the porn industry.' My addition explains what the previous paragraph was talking about.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.148.222.114 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't cite to anything and if you're referring to youtube, that's not going to cut it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right but I'm asking about the thing because this biography is important to put here.

Maybe you are right but I'm asking about the thing because this biography is important to put here.

For example find another famous article of an important people and you will find the reasons why this people have recognitions not only yours awards and life. This is not general questions.This is the relevence,the importance of the person in question and the article-self. Vicond (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking why is a subjective question and the question has subjective answers which are not appropriate to include in the article unless they can be documented by appropriate reliable sources. Asking Sasha or other editors for their opinion does not improve the article, but invites original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The catholic position. Yes this was years ago and in this time the article had the category named famous catholics. But,now my questions are about the importance about all this. You can not understand me because I think you know very well what is important in porno and what's not.But in my case and in many cases this article now don't means nothing to me, don't have any educational purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicond (talk • contribs) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check again my questions.Don't have subjective answers. Vicond (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to know why she won awards or may be the next Jenna Jameson, right? If there are not reliable sources that attempt to analyse or answer these questions, whatever answer an editor or Sasha comes up with doesn't belong in the article even if the article is worthless to you without these answers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I'm not talking about individuals opinions.I'm not talking about the particular reasons that she won all those prizes.I'm talking about FACTS. But you say this matter DON'T BELONGS to the article?OK, now I suppose that yours-self commentary on the Sandra Romain article are inappropiates for the wiki too.On this way.Do you allow me to delete them please? Now,I'm not problem to deleted my sugestions and answers,including this about you. If you don't respond me on the next two days I will makes this.

Vicond (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not put in self-commentary in the Sandra Romain article. The cited source said she has done triple anal and that companies request her to do it because they are astounded that she is able to do it. The source did not say anything about her reputation to do double anal or being a "double anal queen". The source also said she was "best" friends with Melissa Lauren, not "great" friends. Please read the wikipedia policy on verifiability. If reliable sources do not explain why she won her awards or why people think she may be the next Jenna Jameson, that is the reason why her wikipedia article does not discuss it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, in that case we can to find others sources that corroborate her fame.For example I read that she is very well knowed by hers deep throat scenes,and she can practice fellatio with 15 men in one time,like a gang bang. It don't speak specifically about her reputation like the next Jeena Jameson,neither the prizes but is a FACT that corroborate her reputation on the adult industry, and many others Users that don't have the possibility to find pornography materials can understand why she is the super starporn. It don't have more discution.Read the Sasha Grey's article again and you'll see that I'am reason. Nothing special to find of her.Finally if Sasha Grey is not a hot woman I am happy to hear that and all about her many artistic talents .I'm not problem with it.

Regards

Vicond (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:)

Okay Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way was my contribution to the article Maria Ozawa "NOT CONSTRUCTIVE??

You plagiarised someone else's copyrighted work. That means you tried to pass off someone else's work as your own. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you directly and not bog down the project page with this. It comes across like you are attempting to limit content. I agree with another editor on the PORNBIO discussion that there are too many stubs but if an article has some notability and can be created (without forcing it, obviously) I don't see the concern. I'm not trying to attack you in any way, just looking for clarification on why you are so adamant about it. I also wanted to mention that you accused me of "outing" Alison Angel several months ago by putting in her name. That bugged me so I wanted clarify that it was on several advertising and social networking sites. I wasn't attempting to be malicious in any way. Thanks again for your thoughts on the whole Alison Angel thing. I disagree with you but my feelings aren't hurt by it.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am adamant about enforcing wikipedia's policy on verifiability and biographies. All content should be verifiable against a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies requires you to respect the privacy of individuals. Her real name, if it is her name, is not widely disseminated through reliable sources and adult performers intentionally conceal their identities through the use of stage names. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and is one of the top 10 most viewed websites in the world. In my opinion, you are outing her identity even if you justify that advertising and social networking sites have already done so. None of them are considered reliable for wikipedia to legitimise to the general public. As for recreating the article itself, I only told you what was likely going to happen. Apparently it was recreated twice in the last day and deleted and now the article space is locked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a mistake. That is why I mentioned it. Just trying to say it was a simple mistake and when you use a term like "out" it comes across in a jerky fashion. Regardless, what does that have to do with my question on your concern anyways? I wasn't involved in attempting to recreate the article but I'm not surprised someone tried after it popped up on the porn project page. I assure you my second attempt would have been at least a bit better than my first.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you've done some editing on the Sasha Grey entry. The entry already mentions her work with Richard Kern and VBS.tv, and I was wondering if a link to her work with VBS would meet Wikipedia standards. I work at VBS and we feel that much of our content meets encyclopedic standards and would be beneficial to individuals researching the multitude of topics we cover, Grey being one such instance. If your are unfamiliar with the Shot by Kern series, it documents a Kern photoshoot and interview featuring Grey. Do you feel this meets standards for outgoing reference links? Any feedback would be highly appreciated, and please let me know if there's anything I can do to give you a better idea of what VBS.tv is all about. Thanks! CorridorX (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually if a link is already in the references, putting it in as an external link is seen as redundant and is removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how can you be higher ranking than me when you have one measly banner compared to my several? EnigmaKH (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Morbidthoughts. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Exuse me but he is vandalizing and making personal attacks.--Yankees10 19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned for the personal attacks and for the 3-revert rule over this content dispute. Please don't engage in an edit war with him. Step back and someone else can revert him if it is vandalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He has now been blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sir, I got your message in the yellow bracket at the top of my page alerting me to your message. I hope Im doing this right and my message gets to you. Im new to Wikipedia but am an old old porn fan and the girls listed Nikita Denise, Katja Kassin, Harmony Rose, Jewel De Nyle are some of my favorites. I thought I was helping their articles by relating what I thought was accurate info from IMDb. Im only interested in concise & precise info. Not information that can't be trusted. If IMDb info is erroneous then it need not be entered. Thanks for telling me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.19.224 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember also that these girls use stage names to protect their privacy and that we should respect it even though their "real names" are posted all over the internet. This private information should not be posted unless it is reported by a stronger source like a newspaper or a trade journal like AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

hi, i have noticed on top of my page that you have suggested it for speedy deletion. what is that for? this is about a software company. this is not an advertisment. i wrote this as a info for other people who use wikipedia. and also if you would like this to be deleted, then y r companies like infosys and satyam still in wikipedia? i can add more content to this page. this is like any other big software companies. so, i would suggest it be on wikipedia. you are welcome to express ur thoughts. thanks. --Evileyes 247 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notability guidelines for companies. The companies you brought up have references that seem to satisfy the guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i have also added a few links to the page now., and am sure i can get more news to support my page about the company. i just gave those companies as an example because this company am writing about is the same as the other companies. this info would help a lot of users on wikipedia. thats my aim. as i told you earlier, this is not a promotion. ill add more details and references about this company. --123.236.185.160 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i was waiting for your response, i have added some refrences, is the page still going to be deleted?? --Evileyes 247 20:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on whether the article should be deleted or not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I made an edit for clarity on a paragraph on Johnny_Bench's wikipedia page yesterday, and User:Yankees10 immediately reverted it. I notice he's already been warned as possibly being in violation of wikipedia's rules, so I wanted to give a public heads-up. He left no comment as to why he reverted.

L. (no i.d. yet, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.61.62 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats funny you revert my edit on Johnny Bench, when the IP is removing a bunch of info for no reason, removing good info is vandalism and you are backing him.--Yankees10 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking over it I think I was wrong about this, sorry for the trouble.--Yankees10 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You tagged an article as A7, but it would have been better served as a G10 and blanked. The article included the following: queer student organizer ... as being self-indulgent and vanguardist. While many in the GLBT might use the word queer, it is often used by people as a slight and likely an attack page. As an attack page, it should be blanked (so that it is not mirrored by wikiclones) and tagged G10---some people monitor G10's before the rest of the CSD population.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed like an autobiography to me rather than an attack page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya... can you do me a favour and look at an image on Commons? I want to add full IDs of everyone on stage and I've added who I know and can research, but I don't know who they all are. The image in question is File:XRCO_2009.jpg. TIA... Tabercil (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the unknown people are from left to right: Jeff Mullen the producer aka Will Ryder the director, Flower Tucci, Jenna Haze (c'mon now), and Scott David the producer Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL... Hey if I could ID Jenna from only half a face I would've. <G> Thanks anyway. Tabercil (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page for the explanation why you earned this warning.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

When you removed my information claiming unreliable sourcing, I accepted it, because that was sensitive information. Your last edit though removed information that although poorly sourced, there was no special reason to remove. It is a shame that editors like you prefer adhering to "the letter of the law" rather than to providing information. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You added a notability tag to this article. I have cited four independent sources and more are available. There is a difference between notable and famous, and per WP:ATHLETE Phil Williams fulfills the criteria for notability as he is a professional athlete. I ask that you remove the notability tag from this article. Brain Rodeo (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe simply being a professional is enough to establish notability as a boxer, even under WP:ATHLETE as there is a low barrier of entry from amateur boxing to professional. All you need to do is fight for money to be a professional boxer. As for the sources, I consider the boxingrec mentions to be trivial and the wordpress blog is not a reliable source. If you put in more sources with significant coverage (covering other fights or just Phil himself) like the eastside boxing citation, I will remove the notability tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Several thoughts: first, whatever you think of the criteria set forth in WP:ATHLETE, Williams has met it. Second, Williams hasn't simply fought for money, his record is 10-1 and his only loss came to an undefeated (now 17-0-1) opponent (Marcus Oliveria). This is a good stub-class article about a well-known boxing prospect. This ground has been trod before - I've written a lot of these article - and you're mistaken in placing the notability tag on this article. I'm being courteous in asking you to remove the tag yourself, but I'm not going to be passive. Brain Rodeo (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking other editors over at the WT:BIO page on how WP:ATHLETE is supposed to apply to boxers or any other fighting sports. I am of the opinion that not all professional boxers are notable just like not all professional baseball, football, hockey, or even soccer players are notable. After all, minor-league athletes are professional but most editors do not consider them notable and multiple AFDs have borne this out. I have watched boxing for 25 years and I consider fighters like Williams and Oliveria to be "minor league" despite their "gaudy" records. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another barely-sourced stub on a marginal sports figure, which will never mature into anything resembling a decent article. Meets WP:Athlete, though even though this would never pass WP:BIO or WP:N otherwise (which shows again that WP:ATHLETE should be thrown out) --Crusio (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to your characterizing Williams (and now Marcus Oliveria as well) as professionals in name only. It isn't as if either of them has only just turned pro and been paid $100 to fight once. Both have matured into respected professionals and show headliners, Oliveria in particular. Brain Rodeo (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Their fame seems to be just regional (the midwest) for now. I am amazed that a 31-year-old non-heavyweight fighter is considered a legitimate prospect especially when he lost to a 35-yr-old fighter who's not ranked as a contender. Are either ranked in the top 10 by the WBO, WBA, WBC, or IBF? Have either ever fought on national television? Those are just some signs of what I think are notable boxers. Right now, all I am asking is for you to add reliable sources (like ESPN, the Ring, maxboxing, any newspapers) that show significant coverage of the fighters to demonstrate their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I said it before: fame and notability aren't the same thing. Brain Rodeo (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why I know why Hotel 626 is deleted? I mean, I'm not advertising... ThunderXANA (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It was promotion of the game to dare the reader to go check it out. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. Ok, thanks for the information ThunderXANA (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation Christina Hendricks, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Calvin93 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Calvin, please read the wikipedia policy on biographies of living people thoroughly. What you are wanting to add about Ms. Hendricks is speculation by a promotional website for plastic surgery. This website fails miserably as a reliable source. Please remember that wikipedia biographies must be written conservatively and wikipedia is not a tabloid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your enthusiasm and watchdoggy-ness regarding Wiki, your edit to my edit of the Penny Flame article seems capricious. She admits -- in her own blog ("Becoming Jennie") -- to being in therapy for addictions to sex and substances. Have you read it?

So my edits were in no way outside the Wiki guidelines and they were entirely without inference. I merely stated the facts, as she stated them herself. There can be no more credible a source than a person's own words, no?

I'll restore my edit and cite reference to her own words. I trust that will be sufficient.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForAbsintheFriends (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote in the edit summary. The citation you must include must directly state that she is undergoing therapy not only for her sex addiction but also for substance abuse. If you do not do this, your additions will be reverted again. Further you don't have to include her therapy information in the introduction of the article. You should probably place it later with the appropriate citations. Further, please do not turn the article into an entry by entry quote log of her blog. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am new at Wikipedia. I edited Karlie Montana new Wikipedia at her request. I will add my sources of information and update her profile. We went over my proposed contributions with her before I posted them. Also does personal interview with Karlie Montana count as a source? I do not want to make any controversial statements about a her in this article. I also welcome any assistance you can provide since I want to do a real good job! Thank You Ashland1860 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Ashland1860Ashland1860 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can not directly interview her for the purposes of wikipedia as that is considered prohibited original research. The controversial statements were about her upbringing and we can't have these kinds of assertions without proper sources. It's better to just not mention them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is right, but in the source, were written that her first scene was making in march 2003.

In this source is nowhere written that the first scene is "straight to the a 4".

that is another fact. --Dreaven3 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be removed and I removed and reorganised the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank your for your effort for the article. --Dreaven3 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The changing of the standard was only to reflect that the current standard is not logical for certain sports. For sports where there is an objective comparison such as a time or mark, this should be the standard for notability of the athlete, along with main stream sport specific media attention, i.e. usatf or runner's world for track (anything else is mere discrimination based on age or circumstance). Under the current definition only 3 US 5k distance runners would qualify while over 1,500 football players would. How is this fair? And to clarify I did not change it to sway the deletion discussion of Chris Derrick. Also note that i never mentioned the new definition in the Chris Derrick page. In fact I specifically mentioned he qualifies under the old definition. The main point is that the current definition is "Sexist". This type of blatant sexism is one of the major reasons why wikipedia loses credibility. The fact that 2000 or so current football players are eligible for pages and only 3-5 US 5k runners are eligible is a clear example of said sexism. Sports that are deemed "masculine" get massive recognition, while sports that are deemed less masculine get very little recognition. I could care less about the Derrick argument, in comparison to this blatantly sexist definition of what a notable athlete is. The chris derrick page was only important in that it pointed me to the injustice going on at WP:athlete. To accuse me of changing the page to sway the derrick argument is kind of silly, it would be like me accusing you of reverting the page in order to intentionally perpetuate the gender bias of the wiki, which I know was not your intention.MATThematical (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond, I think WP:ATHLETE is overinclusive as it is and that any notable athlete especially in today's time will satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO like Chris Derrick does. As an aside, someone for some reason eliminated my Keep vote for that AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interjection - that was me, and it was a horrible mistake, for which grovelling apology on my talk page - all I intended to do was move to its proper place at the bottom MATThematical's comment which (no doubt in good faith) he had posted at the top. I wouldn't, anyway, attempt to !vote-fiddle, but I am in fact on your side and had !voted "weak keep", though I dislike the vociferous SPA claque that seems to have been drummed up to support - IMO mistakenly, because it was heading to "keep" anyway, but all the sound and fury may be stirring up opposition. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree. This is why after your revert I rethought what I did and instead decided to add my opinion to remove the professional qualification to the wp:athlete list (even though it will never happen). As far as Derrick goes, apparently people don't think the iaaf, usatf, Fox Sports News and the San Francisco Chronicle are prominent secondary sources. Seems kind of bizarre to me. Sorry to get of the wrong foot, no hard feelings. --MATThematical (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dakoda_Brookes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.202.57 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to be notable yet according to WP:PORNBIO. She hasn't won any awards yet and does not have multiple years of nominations yet. There is not much substantive coverage of her in reliable sources other than stories that she went on a prom date with a high school student. How about waiting until the 2010 nominations come out? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a super fan of japanese idols and MariaO is my absolute favorite, I seen external links in the Maria Ozawa section send to ozawamaria.info and that site is horrible, I tried to add an actual informative site mariaozawa.us and it was declined, I dont understand why? I'd like to see some decent reference and info site into the wikipedia Mozawa section. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please compare those 2 sites you'll SURELY notice the difference in quality (ozawamaria.info and mariaozawa.us)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99jscott99 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Both sites were bad and removed. The reason why is that they are for the most part, galleries with referral codes. We also have no idea whether the information presented on those sites are reliable. External links should be sites that Ozawa is actually involved with. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for pointing that out, by the way the links to XVN and Sweetpig are all 404 links, I'm new to editing these wiki pages so I'd rather just tell you to remove those :) Thanks man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99jscott99 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, of course you're right about the Maria Ozawa ref no longer being there, I should have checked it myself. She seems to have deleted that entry (it definitely was there a few days ago) - maybe things didn't go well with them :). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to pipe in here too-- I read the entry after Cherryblossom added it, and yes, it was definitely there, and there were several more mentions of the relationship in later entries... . Nevertheless the addition made me a little uncomfortable since it was from Ozawa's blog, and therefore a primary source, and so a bit "original research"ish... (I remember removing some Primary Source info that I had at Chesty Morgan for that same reason.) But then if on top of that, she's now removed the entry, then definitely we shouldn't have it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having self-published sources from the subject is usually allowed although I'm not sure how it applies to the girlfriend since she's a third party. However if Ozawa removed the mention from her blog, we should respect her privacy if no other reliable source has already reported on it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morbidthoughts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.